Ꭺ COLLECTION OF CASES DECIDED BY THE GENERAL COURT. The Commonwealth against Preeson Richards. HE prisoner was indicted for burglary and larceny, THE in the District Court, held at Accomack court-house, in October 1789, before Judges Tazewell and Prentis, and was found guilty by the jury. After the trial, he produced an exception to the court in arrest of judgment on the verdict; the exception was in the following words: "Because the said burglary is not expressly laid "to have been committed within the jurisdiction of this "court, or within the district composed of the counties "of Accomack and Northampton." The indictment com A menced thus; "Accomack, sct. the grand jury for the "district of Accomack and Northampton, &c." and laid the offence to have been committed "in the county of "Northampton, at the parish of Hungars." The matter of law arising on the exception taken in arrest of judgment, was adjourned by the District Court, and at a General Court, held November 26th, 1789, present Judges Parker, Tyler, and Bullitt, it was declared to be the opinion of the court, "that the plea of the prisoner, and the << matter therein contained, are sufficient in law to arrest "the judgment on the said verdict." Note. This case is referred to by Judge Tucker in his Appendix p. 55, to 4th Blackstone. By an act passed January 24th, 1804, it is enacted "that after the verdict "of twelve men, no judgment on any indictment, or in"formation for felony, or any other offence whatsoever, "shall be stayed or reversed for any supposed defect or "imperfection in any such indictment or information, so (6 as the felony, or offence therein charged to have been "committed, or done, be plainly and in substance set "forth with convenient certainty, so as to enable the "court to give judgment thereupon according to the very "right of the cause, any former law, custom, or usage to "the contrary notwithstanding." 2d Vol. Revised Code, p. 38, Sect. 6th. Under this act, an opinion was expressed by the five following judges, namely, W. Nel son, White, Stuart, Coalter and Evans, to this effect: “That after verdict in a criminal case, judgment ought "not to be arrested for want of laying in the indictment, "information, or presentment, an express day, or for not alleging expressly that the offence was committed "within the jurisdiction of the court, when the offence "is expressly averred to have been committed in the county over which the court hath jurisdiction: the "verdict in such cases will be embraced and supported, "by the act of Jeofails passed January 1804." This opinion was given by those judges at a conference held in June 1810. Denny Fairfax against Robert Stephen. The same against David Hunter. THESE by the District Court of Winchester, in April 1790, for novelty and difficulty. The question adjourned, is stated in the opinion of the court. June 20th, 1791. Present, Tazewell, Parker and Tyler, judges. "This day came the parties by their attornies, "who being heard, it is the opinion of this court that the (6 caveats of the several plaintiffs against the respective "defendants, being entered by the clerk of the court, 66 upon copies from the land office certified by the clerk "thereof, and not by the register, are void, and ought "for that reason to be dismissed." The Commonwealth against John Proctor. HE prisoner was indicted in April 1791, in the Dis THE trict Court of Richmond, for having, on the 11th of December, 1790, feloniously and falsely made, forged and counterfeited, and for having caused and procured to be falsely made, forged and counterfeited, a certain writing obligatory purporting to be a power of attorney signed and sealed by one William Cosby, the tenor whereof is stated as follows; "Know all men by these presents, that "I William Cosby of the county of Chesterfield have "requested, empowered, and appointed, and do by these "presents request, empower and appoint William Ni"chols of the county of Dinwiddie to secure the money "due me for my services in the Cavalry in the Conti"nental army which amounts to , to the only proper use and behalf of the said William Nichols. In "witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal "this 11th day of December 1790, William Cosby. "Teste A. S. and G. S. Magistrates of Chesterfield (6 County;" with intent to defraud the said William Cosby, against the form of the act of assembly, &c. The prisoner was found guilty by the jury, and he moved in arrest of judgment, and assigned the following reason:"Because the offence charged in the indict"ment aforesaid is not a crime, within the meaning of "the act entitled "an act against forgery." The question was adjourned for difficulty, and the general court consisting of Tazewell, Tucker, and Tyler, judges, entered the following judgment. "June 24, 1791. It is "the opinion of the court that the offence as charged in "the indictment against the defendant is not a crime "within the meaning of the act entitled 'an act against "forgery' and that judgment on the verdict ought to "be arrested, and the said indictment quashed." Note. "The act against forgery" under which Proctor was indicted, was passed on the 25th November, 1789, |